This is topic Question for OSC on Google's plan to digitize library book collections in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.
Do you have an opinion ( ...I'm sure you do) on this?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
bump
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Do you just want OSC to answer this or can others chime in?
Posted by JakeW (Member # 7888) on :
I'd love to hear what he thinks of it.
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
Seems to me Google is getting way out of hand stealing others' copyrighted works.
On the other hand, it appears that Tor and Mr. Card expressly allowed the books to be scanned, according to the Google site.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its a tough call. We have always been able to read books for free. The local library has been distributing free copyrighted material for centuries. Not to mention used bookstores making a profit off of copyrighted materials. Card and others would not be making money off of me either way for getting the benefit of their works. I like many others just so happen to enjoy a bookshelf full of books read and bought new.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Oh, please feel free to give your own opinions. I'm specifically interested in what a published author's feelings would be, but all opinions are welcomed. Unless I disagree...Then you'll need to kindly bugger off. Posted by R. Ann Dryden (Member # 8186) on :
Personally, as a new writer, if a Google search turned up something I wrote and got someone interested enough in me to look up the story or book, that could only be a good thing. From what I understand, they will only be showing small sections at a time of the source material, which would cut down on people stealing the whole thing.
Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
What I would like is a system where the works of an author are stored on a central server for say a store like barnes and noble. When you go into the store, they have no books, but they would be able to print and bind books to order. Would require them to lower the cost of the printing machines by alot and allow them to have more room for variablitiy on the fly, but would be awesome.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
The problem with electronic distribution is that people can make an infinite number of original copies. It's not like the old days, where when you lent a library book you didn't have to fret about somebody making a thousand identical copies and sending them, free of charge, to all their friends and acquaintances in just a few seconds.
At the same time, I used to post my novels online as soon as I wrote them - in their entirety - as a means of offering enthusiastic readers a chance to get a head start. The theory was that the early readers would talk it up. We then took the manuscript down as soon as the real book came out.
My belief was - and is - that electronic copies are for a different market. I'm deeply resentful of people who post my books without my permission - it's so rude; downright impudent in fact; so it feels like being slapped. But I would post them myself if I was allowed to. Then again, I have the right - it's MY copyright.
But I'm not allowed to post them for free, because the bookstores are confused and think that people will read online INSTEAD of buying the books. I think the opposite is true - if people read a book online and loved it, they would insist on owning a hardcopy that couldn't be erased by a lightning strike or a power surge.
As for digitizing public domain work - I've been a longtime advocate of that. I believe that every book ever written in every language, no matter how obscure or unlikely to be read again, should be digitized and available and indexed so it's findable. But then, I would think that - since I have a vested interest in writers' works NOT disappearing after death.
I believe scholarly publications are BEST published online, because when the market is very small, the cost is vastly lower to skip the print-and-paper step. Scholarly and scientific journals should also be published online - allowing them a larger table of contents and saving poorer universities hundreds of thousands of dollars in journal subscriptions while still allowing them to carry ALL the journals and not just some. Life is better for everyone that way.
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I believe scholarly publications are BEST published online, because when the market is very small, the cost is vastly lower to skip the print-and-paper step. Scholarly and scientific journals should also be published online - allowing them a larger table of contents and saving poorer universities hundreds of thousands of dollars in journal subscriptions while still allowing them to carry ALL the journals and not just some.
Amen. I've been trying to convince a group for years to go digital and save printing cost, but no go. If it's not paper, it doesn't count, y'know.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: But I would post them myself if I was allowed to.
Were.
I believe everything should be free. Then again, I wouldn't like my poetry to be copied billions of times over the Web (oh, wait a minute... ), without my exclusive control over it. If I want to edit something, don't I have the right to before the old is distributed round the world?
There is the option of "my personal site" where all the information is available for free (or a small annual fee). I think it might even be worthwhile on Hatrack: you pay $x a year and all your writings, Mr Card, are available.
Then you can have exclusive updates.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Thank you for responding. I appreciated your insight, and now have a more rounded view of both sides of the argument.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
...I'm sure you do) on this?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)